Medicare for everyone

[ttwtt78640]

It makes snake oil policies possible, nay likely, which is why the insurance industry is pushing for it so hard and not so they can lower their profits with increased competition.

Works like this: pick a state which is either super insurance-friendly, or in which the Insurance Commission can be littered with and headed by industry minions. Then bypass the insurance commissioners in any of the other 49 states, and have a friggin' field day profiting from unsuspecting consumers, by selling crap that their own insurance commission would not touch in a hundred years.

You. ARE. Being. Played.

This "snake oil" has not been evident in the nationwide sales of life, auto or homeowner's insurance policies because?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

emphasis on ridiculous amount I never said we shouldn't use tax dollars on defense and law enforcement. Is that what you are implying?

What is so ridiculous about it then? Are you saying we are locking up to many people who have not comitted a crime? Is our military not doing a good job of defending our nation from attack? Sure we could do with a few hundred less warplanes, ship, tanks and other expensive equipment but most of the military spending is on people. Do you think we shouldn't pay an care for them as well as we do?

 

[Sisyphus]

This "snake oil" has not been evident in the nationwide sales of life, auto or homeowner's insurance industries because?

Because "nationwide" is a relative concept. To be nationwide, which any insurer can be, you have to pass the smell test of insurance commissions in all 50 states, and also, as all the policies you mentioned have, disclaimers for certain states, which have higher requirements.

Simple rule of thumb: Industries hate competition, and product/service commoditization. In fact, they'll do whatever they can to reduce competition. So when an Industry says to you: Our profit is too high!!! We want more competition!!! Prices to consumers for the stuff we sell must come down!!! ... then ... You. ARE. Being. Played.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Sorry; I should have qualified that. I mean people with jobs or not jobs but have money to spend.

The point about any 'savings' is that the only way to spend less, as a nation, is to either not get sick so much or to pay the people who provide the medical care less money for their services, and that includes the drug makers who develop antibotics that keep MERSA in check that get rid of cancers, that keep you alive and the medical equipment makers who allow angoplasty to be performed without cutting you open or who develop laproscopic surgery tools and techniques so that a kidney replacement may one day be an outpatient surgery.

You don't save any significant money on healthcare simply be giving someone insurance cards.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Simple rule of thumb: Industries hate competition, and product/service commoditization. In fact, they'll do whatever they can to reduce competition. So when an Industry says to you: Our profit is too high!!! We want more competition!!! Prices to consumers for the stuff we sell must come down!!! ... then ... You. ARE. Being. Played.

That is why the insurance companies were generally in favor of Obamacare. Millions of new customers who would be forced to buy their product. It's a buinessmans dream!

 

[Sisyphus]

That is why the insurance companies were generally in favor of Obamacare. Millions of new customers who would be forced to buy their product. It's a buinessmans dream!

Of course. It mandated that people or government (they care not which) buy what they sell. It's an insurance industry wetdream, mainly championed by that stool sample, Joe Lieberman, whose state is the epitome of Insurance Industry-friendly and hosts many an HQ.

Further, they fought to the death to prevent a Public Option, since they know it's more cost-efficient and would displace them in the market.

 

[opendebate]

What is so ridiculous about it then? Are you saying we are locking up to many people who have not comitted a crime? Is our military not doing a good job of defending our nation from attack? Sure we could do with a few hundred less warplanes, ship, tanks and other expensive equipment but most of the military spending is on people. Do you think we shouldn't pay an care for them as well as we do?

Dude, relax.

No I didn't say any of that. Where did you even get that

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because "nationwide" is a relative concept. To be nationwide, which any insurer can be, you have to pass the smell test of insurance commissions in all 50 states, and also, as all the policies you mentioned have, disclaimers for certain states, which have higher requirements.

Simple rule of thumb: Industries hate competition, and product/service commoditization. In fact, they'll do whatever they can to reduce competition. So when an Industry says to you: Our profit is too high!!! We want more competition!!! Prices to consumers for the stuff we sell must come down!!! ... then ... You. ARE. Being. Played.

What have I said that would stop that "state approval" process from remaining intact? While you fear cronyism for only nationally selling medical care insurance I see no state that now alllows that - what would make them change? What better way to limit competition than to have two or three insurance provders get together and have that state lock out all others? I see many insurance policies that are basically use our "prefered providers" (or health maitanence organizers) or pay the bulk of the bill on your own - which are approved, yet policies that say pay the first $10K on your own and we will pick up the rest are not approved. You failed to address my principle complaint of using insurance for all routine health maintanence expenses - that is a major factor in driving up premium costs at present, yet PPACA adds more to that list of "no out of pocket cost" treatments.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Dude, relax.

No I didn't say any of that. Where did you even get that

Ok then what is it that is ridiculous about the level of spending? What are we wasting money on?

 

[Sisyphus]

What have I said that would stop that "state approval" process from remaining intact? While you fear cronyism for only nationally selling medical care insurance I see no state that now alllows that - what would make them change? What better way to limit competition than to have two or three insurance provders get together and have that state lock out all others? I see many insurance policies that are basically use our "prefered providers" (or health maitanence organizers) or pay the bulk of the bill on your own - which are approved, yet policies that say pay the first $10K on your own and we will pick up the rest are not approved. You failed to address my principle complaint of using insurance for all routine health maintanence expenses - that is a major factor in driving up premium costs at present, yet PPACA adds more to that list of "no out of pocket cost" treatments.

Sell across state lines, which bypasses in-state insurance oversight. Why else would they push for it so strongly? Do you really believe that special interests lobby for more competition and lower profits? Is anyone that gullible????

 

[Tigger]

So where do you get your healthcare from? An employer or are you iindepentently wealthy?

Through my employer. Which is where it should come from.

 

[azgreg]

Make medical care insurance back into real insurance and allow it to be sold nationwide like auto, life and homeowner's insurance. Insurance is for the rare, unexpected and expensive events in life and not routine maintanence costs. Medical care insurance should not be a tax free benefit to the employee - it should be taxed at its cash value as earnings. A $30K/year job with $5K in employer paid insurance is no different than a $35K/year job that the individual then elects to spend $5K on insurance.

Imagine what auto insurance would cost if it covered worn out tires, oil changes or tune-ups. Imagine what homeowner's insurance would cost if it covered appliance replacement, lawn maintanence or periodic repainting. Many people now seem to expect that insurance will make medical care "free", or reduce it to a small fixed additional out of pocket cost each year by adding massive amounts of paperwork required to make every single medical expense into an "insured" instance.

Selling insurance accross state lines makes national competition possible. Why should a single male pay for OB-GYN coverage or get "free" birth control pills and why should rates not be based on sound actuarial risks? Now I can see placing an upper limit of say 5x the lowest risk premium rate for the highest risk rate. Having a severe limit for first year (5 years?) coverage maximums would prevent folks from getting a policy only when they feel the need for major (expensive) care - the reason for the PPACA individual mandate.

I understand that principle and I'm not against it. It seems to me that todays system is stuck in the middle "No man's land." I kind of like the idea of pay as you go wellness (doctor's office visits for physicals, sniffles, get a prescription, etc.) and use an 'Insurance Policy" for unexpected illness or injury. With that being said there is a segment of our population that can't afford a pay as you go wellness system. What about them?

 

[opendebate]

Through my employer. Which is where it should come from.

Why SHOULD it be that way

 

[Sisyphus]

Why SHOULD it be that way

So we can pay for it in the cost of stuff we buy, apparently, since employer-paid health insurance is paid for by buyers or their products and services. And if at the manufacturing level, it raises product costs disproportionately, due to master distributor and retail markup.

Yippee for our world's most costly health "care."

 

[Tigger]

Why SHOULD it be that way

Healthcare is not a right but a privilege. A privilege for those who do the things necessary to earn it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I understand that principle and I'm not against it. It seems to me that todays system is stuck in the middle "No man's land." I kind of like the idea of pay as you go wellness (doctor's office visits for physicals, sniffles, get a prescription, etc.) and use an 'Insurance Policy" for unexpected illness or injury. With that being said there is a segment of our population that can't afford a pay as you go wellness system. What about them?

Even outright giving the poor free insurance still leaves the deductable/cop-pay hurddle to overcome, transportation to/from care, the cost of prescriptions and followup visits. Most of the poor will still use the ER just as they did in MA after RomneyCare increased the number of insured significantly (and at considerable taxpayer cost).

 

[Sisyphus]

Healthcare is not a right but a privilege. A privilege for those who do the things necessary to earn it.

That's why I oppose post natal and pediatric care, since newborns and toddlers have done squat to earn heathcare!!!!

 

[opendebate]

Healthcare is not a right but a privilege. A privilege for those who do the things necessary to earn it.

I disagree, I think we have an obligation to provide healthcare to our citizens. Even if you look at from a purely fiscal perspective, it seems rather short sighted not to.

 

[Tigger]

I disagree, I think we have an obligation to provide healthcare to our citizens. Even if you look at from a purely fiscal perspective, it seems rather short sighted not to.

Then we will have to disagree. I believe it is the responsibility of the individual, their family, friends and their community (through charity, not the Government) to deal with health issues.

 

[opendebate]

Then we will have to disagree. I believe it is the responsibility of the individual, their family, friends and their community (through charity, not the Government) to deal with health issues.

That's a shocking stance coming from someone who identifies as very conservative:shock:

 

[Stewart]

That's a shocking stance coming from someone who identifies as very conservative:shock:

That's our Tigger, he sure is consistent

 

[Tigger]

That's a shocking stance coming from someone who identifies as very conservative:shock:

That stance is the very essence of Conservatism. The idea that the Government is the answer to personal problems is NOT a Conservative principle.

 

[opendebate]

That stance is the very essence of Conservatism. The idea that the Government is the answer to personal problems is NOT a Conservative principle.

It was a joke Tigger. I thought you were suppose to be light hearted. Tiggers are wonderful fun?

 

[Carleen]

Through my employer. Which is where it should come from.

And will under the ACA

 

[Tigger]

And will under the ACA

The Government has no legitimate role in healthcare. For the moment the employers have been allowed to remain in the mix but it appears to me that it may not be long before the employers and even the opinions of the people needing the care are no longer part of the equation.